An ongoing theme argued about in this blog and its comments section is the counterproductivity of Democrat or liberal intellectual condescension to the folks in red America. And yet Sarah Palin's speech dripping with contempt for Obama and Democrats in general is given an A by 60% of those polled, and she currently sports a 58% approval rating–higher than either of the presidential candidates who present themselves as taking the high road. It's proven again and again that negativity works for Republicans, but Democrats better not get negative because it's only going to backfire on them. See Greenwald today on this.
So why is it ok for Palin to go negative the way she did? Is it because she's perceived as the scrappy underdog defending herself from a contemptuous establishment that had the gall to question her lack of qualifications? Or is it because Democrats have for some perverse reason become identified with the establishment that populist Republicans are in an eternal struggle to defeat, and Palin is just their latest champion. It's both, but I think more the second. But by any objective standard, when you look at all the obstacles he had to overcome, Obama is the genuine scrappy underdog–all Palin did was get picked and then read a speech. And yet Obama's been successfully branded in the minds of many as the uppity elitist.
So why are Republicans so effective at controlling the narratives? These narratives are complete nonsense, but they resonate with red America, and this idea of change and reform of Washington was repeated over and over again throughout the convention. Anybody with a lick of sense sees it for the b.s. it is, but the only media types calling them on it are Stewart and Colbert: The Republicans, pitchforks in hand, are marching to Washington to throw out the Republicans who have made such a mess of things there. And what are they going to do when the get there? Exactly what Republicans have been doing all along.
Nevertheless, the Republicans own the embattled underdog narrative. They are the spunky, righteous minority that will save this country from moral ruin, and now they have their Annie Oakley who is going into Washington guns blazing to throw those rascals out. You dare to give her any guff, and she'll give it back to you and more. Yessir. Are a majority of Americans going to buy this idiocy once again?
So for me the fundamental question is a tactical one. How do sensible people make the case to Main Street that this GOP/Christianist embattled underdog narrative is complete nonsense? How do you forcefully, compellingly call it what it is? Sure, a positive Democratic narrative has to be offered as an alternative, but you also have to work, as the GOP has no compunction to do, to make the other side look bad. It shouldn't be that hard to do because it is so really bad.
This election is not going to be won or lost on the issues; it's a war of mentalities, and the side that shows the most toughness will win. I think Obama has that toughness, and that he and his team are smart enough to develop a strategy to win this thing. But that doesn't mean I'm not worried about it.
Leave a Reply